And now for the rest of the story!

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

..........Bush's former homeland security adviser, Frances Townsend, said Thursday that politics never played a role in determining alert levels.

Two tapes were released by al-Qaida in the weeks leading up to the election -- one by terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and the other by a man calling himself "Azzam the American." Terrorism experts suspected that "Azzam the American" was Adam Gadahn, a 26-year-old Californian whom the FBI had been urgently seeking.

Townsend said the videotapes contained "very graphic" and "threatening" messages.............

...........Townsend said that anytime there was a discussion of changing the alert level, she first spoke with Ridge and then, if necessary, called a meeting of the homeland security council comprising the secretaries of defense and homeland security, the attorney general and CIA and FBI directors. The group then made a recommendation to the president about whether the color-coded threat level should be raised.

"Never were politics ever discussed in this context in my presence," she said.

Asked if there was any reason for Ridge to have felt pressured, Townsend said: "He was certainly not pressured. And, by the way, he didn't object when it was raised and he certainly didn't object when it wasn't raised."........

More Here

________________________________________________________

And by the way Ridge could not have been pressured because he did not make the final decision. Only the President did. Ridge has intentionally mis-characterized this event.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

The bottom line is, was it reasonable to raise the threat level? There's nothing to suggest it wasn't reasonable. Additioanlly, as noted earlier, it's ultimately the call of the President, so if Bush said the threat level should be raised, then the threat level shoudl be raised. The description as put forth by Tom Ridge appears inconsistent with the facts.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

The bottom line is, was it reasonable to raise the threat level? There's nothing to suggest it wasn't reasonable. Additioanlly, as noted earlier, it's ultimately the call of the President, so if Bush said the threat level should be raised, then the threat level shoudl be raised. The description as put forth by Tom Ridge appears inconsistent with the facts.

Click to expand...

Ridge is probably like that little fat press secretary, trying to sell books.

ExpandCollapse

Banned

After Bush was seated in office second time the terror alerts kinda died out qui bono?

The neocons played the threat of terrorism like a fiddle to get what they wanted, and to hide what they didn't want people to know.

Bottom line here is they were crooks playing on our fears no different than the crooks we have now playing on our fears about "global warming". Give us what we want or our boogeyman will get you. One of the oldest tricks in the book and you all are still falling for it.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

After Bush was seated in office second time the terror alerts kinda died out qui bono?

Click to expand...

Not sure what it is you think you have posted here other than a littany of anti-Bush characterizations. I am not a Bush supporter. He was a big disappointment the second time around. But Ridge has intentionally mis-characterized his position and responsibilities.

ExpandCollapse

Banned

Not sure what it is you think you have posted here other than a littany of anti-Bush characterizations. I am not a Bush supporter. He was a big disappointment the second time around. But Ridge has intentionally mis-characterized his position and responsibilities.

Click to expand...

Do some research Rev, into the whole story. Put it all together, connect the dots. Governments use fear to control their populations. It's not a new idea and it's not something we're immune to just because we live in the USA.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

Do some research Rev, into the whole story. Put it all together, connect the dots. Governments use fear to control their populations. It's not a new idea and it's not something we're immune to just because we live in the USA.

Click to expand...

This is certainly true in our history but we do not need to make a boogy man out of every event. Just because it has been true does not mean every instance is true.

ExpandCollapse

Banned

You've been around BB this long and haven't noticed the democrats defend democrats and republicans defend republicans (in some cases no matter what they've done or are about to do) instead of the constitution and bill of rights?

"We" is everyone on this board and in this country with the exception of a very limited few who tend to defend the law instead of men. By law I'm not talking about all the un-constitutional laws that were passed in seasons of fear and dread but the law that limits the government's power.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

Not sure what it is you think you have posted here other than a littany of anti-Bush characterizations. I am not a Bush supporter. He was a big disappointment the second time around. But Ridge has intentionally mis-characterized his position and responsibilities.

Click to expand...

Heard yesterday that Cheney had said his influence with Bush waned in the second term. Perhaps that is one reason. Frankly I believe his attempt to reform SS hurt him. SS will only be reformed when it goes bankrupt and out of business.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

You seem to be under the delusion that not being for either party keeps you objective. This is a fallacy that cannot be supported. Relying on sites like infowars is not the best way to remain objective.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

And how are we supposed to tell the difference when our first political priority is to defend our chosen politicos instead of the constitution and bill of rights?

Click to expand...

You have to use the tools available. Right now, like it or not, the only tool we have is the Republican Party. Now if overnight you can hocus pocus a majority Conservative Party into existence then more power to you, but don't tarry, the time may be shorter than you think.

ExpandCollapse

Banned

You seem to be under the delusion that not being for either party keeps you objective. This is a fallacy that cannot be supported. Relying on sites like infowars is not the best way to remain objective.

Click to expand...

When I was born again I built my house on the rock Rev. I did the same when I became political. My political rock is the constitution and bill of rights. Not a group of corruptable men who promise me the moon on a silver platter if I'll just...

This keeps me a heck of alot more objective than most of the posters on this board who can only argue about which group of corruptable men is best suited to carry on the statist interventionism both parties and the majority of the dumbed down population seem to think is the answer to all our problems.

OR says, "You have to use the tools available. Right now, like it or not, the only tool we have is the Republican Party. Now if overnight you can hocus pocus a majority Conservative Party into existence then more power to you, but don't tarry, the time may be shorter than you think."

No, the only tool you have is a corrupt republican party. You've built your house on men who are easily corruptable. The best tool and defense against governmental abuse of powers and the protection of our liberty we have is the law if you'll allow your republicans to bend or break or ignore the law then what have you got?

Quick Navigation

Support us!

The management of Baptist Board works very hard to make sure the community is running the best software, best design, and all the other bells and whistles that goes into a forum our size.Your support is much appreciated!